We had Dale Volker engaging in never-ending thuggery, and David DiPietro deserved to unseat him, as did Kathy Konst later on. September saw the primaries roll around, and I made my endorsements here. Predictably, some asshole or another called my political know-how into question because my “predictions” were so off the mark. Problem is, they weren’t predictions – they were preferences.

28 Responses to “2008. It was a year.”

“Obama then opted out of public campaign financing, thus enabling him to raise an unprecedented sum of money that enabled him to take on all comers and do something that no Democrat had been able to do in recent memory – compete everywhere.”

Alan you forgot to mention that he opted out of public financing
RENEGING ON HIS PROMISE NOT TO DO SO.

Ever wonder from that how many more promises he will break? The AFL-CIO is beginning to wonder about how Barry O will get them what THEY paid for, the homosexuals are all a-twitter about Rick Warren, And the Out of Iraq Caucus isn’t exactly dancin’ in the streets.

There were so many here who put their “HOPE” in Obama to end the wars. Heard much about that lately? And you WON’T. The Junior Senator from IL recently found out it’s not as easy to make decisions as it was to vote “PRESENT”.

So if you see trade deals with China you don’t like because they’re putting unionized American workers out of jobs, you’ll know why—He’s got to pay off his contributors.

If you see reduction or elimination of military assistance and foreign aid to Israel, you’ll know he’s re-paying Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Saudi Royal Family as well as Iran for their support.

But, as long as you got what you wanted, what the fuck difference does it make, eh?

Not a word about UB 2020. As my high school daughter would say, “Epic Fail, Pundit.” (Though I am not really sure what that means…

Gimme a second to get up on my shoebox…The single biggest economic engine in WNY ($1.5 billion last year), the best chance of our generation to truly revive Buffalo, starting with downtown campus, the only project with universal support from Business, Union, Republican, Democrat, public and private leadership and members…and there’s not even a mention?

As a matter of fact, every president that did their best to cut taxes for the rich ended up with a crappy economy….See Reagan, Bush I and Bush II….Clinton raised taxes and yet the economy was pretty good – Unemployment was low, investment in the Tech sector startups was high – (which, BTW is the biggest argument against higher taxes, that the investor class won’t invest, and yet they did)

And…it was deregulation that caused much of the problems. When financial institutions are allowed to make a mortgage and then package it and sell it almost immediately, there is no impotus for them to make good loans, as they won’t have to live with the consequences. When investment houses are allowed to overleverage themselves on ultra risky very complicated things like default credit swaps…no good can come of it and ultimately it is the smaller investors that get screwed because they have so much less to lose, and when they lose they cannot recover from it.

Yes, regulation is necessary so that he big guy who can weather the storms cannot toss the little guy overboard. Regulation is necessary because when money is the barometer of success, there are no holds barred, and regulation is necessary because corporations are not human beings and they have no conscience whatsoever.

hudson your buddy judge Restaino and your enemy mayor vince are still feeding at the public tit, i guess once one gets a taste they never leave. still waiting for carman’s soft landing after getting kicked out of the school district.

Mortgagors have packaged and sold mortgages for decades. This wasn’t something that changed recently under Republican deregulation. If they didn’t, only the very wealth with FICO scores over 740 would be able to get mortgages. There’d be no money available to lend and no way to cover risk.

I love it. The liberal corporate state, 1917-2008, is crumbling as we speak but liberals are in total denial.

What you have to understand that what passes for conservatism today is simply a variant of liberalism. Today’s conservatives believe in taxing and spending and inflating, spying on dissidents, and fighting wars for the sake of democracy. Nothing the odious Woodrow Wilson (who charted our present course), wouldn’t have endorsed. The Republican Party, if TR is any expert, was founded as a “progressive” party against the bad old Jeffersonians. It has had maybe two conservatives as Pres. ever–Harding and Coolidge.

Laissez-faire? That went out 100 years ago. The last remotely LF Pres. was Grover the Great.

Reagan raised taxes seven times. He added gov. employees, inflated the currency, created new bureaucracies and increased spending. Watch what they do, not what they say.

@Jim Ostrowski – I always find your information interesting, but your arguments always make me laugh. There’s no Conservatives since Harding and Coolidge? A long time ago you mentioned that we haven’t had free markets since like 1870. I just don’t even know what to make of it. Are you are hanging onto age old definitions of things that have never actually existed. I mean really, is a definition valid if thing it defines doesn’t now or never really existed, or is then Conservatism and the free markets only a theory that has never been proven/realized.
Just because your theoretical Conservatism doesn’t exist now doesn’t mean Conservatism doesn’t exist now, because here’s the truth….everyone doesn’t have to believe every tenet of every belief system for that system to exist. I am a Democrat who doesn’t believe in abortion…doesn’t mean I can’t still be a Democrat. I am a Catholic who believes in contraception…I am not planning on giving up my faith anytime soon. Textbook definitions don’t often work in real life situations, as things like Capitalism, Conservatism, Liberalism, even things like Communism don’t take into account human nature which includes things like greed, lust, vanity, egomania..which are things that make rational people do irrational things. Irrationality changes the rules, or causes situations that are not covered by the rules of the theory.

Let’s keep it simple. When we do not have a free market economy, and have not had anything resembling a free market economy for many, many decades, don’t go blaming the free market for our problems, okay?

Human nature and greed are the same throughout history and cannot explain the sudden collapse of the economy in October. Were people greedier or more human in October?

Only a force that affects the entire economy differently at different times such as the Federal Reserve, can provide such an explanation.

Yes, let’s keep it simple. Conservatism exists today….not in the 19th century textbook form that you like to use as the definition, but Conservatism exists.

Free markets also don’t exist in the 19th Century definition you have. That doesn’t mean we don’t have a free market system. Totally free markets are not possible because people are greedy.

Are people more greedy than in the past? I believe it is possible because there is much more possibilities with money. Technology also allows for more control/monitoring of your money making activities. Not to mention different ways to make money.

Are people more greedy, possibly…and because of the obvious spoils of money maybe more people are greedy. Greedy people need rules to play by and government provides those rules.

1. There are more tenets to Conservatism than just smaller government.
2. Not sure what the difference between an assertion and an argument is in this context. I believe that there needs to be rules of fair play in any “game” and the markets are definitely a game of sorts. There are competitors, strategies, and rewards. Please don’t mistake my argument for regulation with a desire for OVERREGULATION. I do not believe truly free markets can exist and I attribute that to people’s ability to put aside ethics in pursuit of profit….in my mind that is greed.
3. My defintion of greed is placing the accumulation of wealth high enough on your list that you are willing to do things that are illegal, immoral, or destructive to others in order to achieve it. Because there are enough people out there that are willing to do those things, there has to be regulation to protect the people who want to accumulate wealth, but are unwilling to play by those unfortunate standards or lack thereof. I do not find fair trade (not NAFTA, CAFTA etc.) to fit the definition of greed. I do think that there is enough out there for everyone, and by talking about regulation and government intervention, I do not believe it is the job of government to keep failing businesses from failing…I was not a fan of the bailouts.

The pure market is based on voluntary exchange of private property. Inherent in the concept is the prohibition of force and fraud since neither is voluntary. Any laws that do more than punish force and fraud, are themselves violations of property rights. They are a form of tax on wealth in non-monetary forms. They impose costs on all in the vain effort to prevent some from doing wrong. Laws against force and fraud are enough. Beyond that, the market itself can and has developed mechanisms to limit and punish wrongdoers. Fail to pay credit cards and the credit is cut off is one obvious example. Unlike many conservatives, libertarians have no problem with lawsuits to remedy wrongs and we prefer them to regulation.

And regulations, aside from impoverishing us because they are hidden taxes, rarely work since they are formulated by corrupt politicians and enforced by lazy bureaucrats who have zero incentive to serve our interests. The promulgators and enforcers of regulations bear no personal responsibility for their work or lack of it. And there’s no way to change that or reform it. Legal power is a unilateral, not bilateral relationship. If we could strike back at the politicians and bureaucrats for their regulatory misdeeds, they would cease to be politicians and bureaucrats. Bottom line. My model works because it based on choice; yours fails because it based on force.

Happy New Year..take some time and relax ..nothing much changes in the B~lo so my resolution is..look into the future for problems that have yet to appear and start fighting now..you may actually get somewhere that way!